Geforce 8800 GTS 320

[pcslookout]

How can people say this is a bad card now when it will easily run Left 4 Dead at 1680x1050 (not sure if it can at these settings any higher because that is the highest my monitor goes but I bet it can) with all details on maximum, that is with shadows on ultra high, 4x AA and 16x AF? It gets 60 fps most of the time and drops no lower than 30 fps during heavy action scenes. That is awesome for this card. I know I know the source engine has always been a great gaming engine and not requiring heavy duty hardware.

Though it shows if a game is coded right, like Source games are, then a Geforce 8800 GTS 320 is not a bad card at all even for highest settings and high AA and AF. I don't need 8x AA anyway. 4x AA is good enough I think. The video ram amount of a video card is overdone as well I think because even 512 mb video cards, which is the standard now have problems running some games at even 1680x1050 with high AA and AF. Like GRID I think. I think it all depends on how a game is coded and how well. If some games were not sloppy we would not have to worry about this as much like with EA games.

I know it can't run Crysis at these settings but what video card can ? None right now. At least none that I know of. All benchmarks I seen of Crysis even at 1680x1050 barely have AA or AF enabled nothingless 4x AA and 16x AF.

All I am saying is I think it highly depends on the games you play because some companys program their games a lot better than others and use better engines. I am all for more power hungry games though. I love that Crysis looks as good as it does on very high with 4x AA and 16x AF but it can't be run smoothly enough today to be playable. I would love someone to even try doing that even at the supposely low resolution of 1680x1050 on the ice level and see how bearable it is even on a Tri Geforce 280 rig.

 

[MarcVenice]

8800gts 320mb chugs along just fine at 1680*1050 most of the time. Dead Space, another source base game, runs great as well. Far Cry 2 also runs pretty well ... Depending on how demanding you are, you could still hold out for a little while, maybe even till AMD's entire new line-up hits the market ...

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
8800gts 320mb chugs along just fine at 1680*1050 most of the time. Dead Space, another source base game, runs great as well. Far Cry 2 also runs pretty well ... Depending on how demanding you are, you could still hold out for a little while, maybe even till AMD's entire new line-up hits the market ...

Actually, I think Dead space uses a proprietary EA engine (the same one the Godfather game used).

pcslookout: I understand what you're getting at, and I agree that the 320MB GTS is no slouch, but I don't see the logic of some of your arguments. While it's true that even 512MB isn't enough in some cases, it definitely does make a difference over 320MB. You'll use up 320MB before you use 512MB, and in today's games, it's not that difficult to choke a 320MB card, especially with AA. As for Crysis, you say no video card can run it perfectly at 1680x1050 with 4xAA. While this may be true, it doesn't change the fact that it'll be much, much more playable on a rig with a GTX280 than one with a 320MB GTS.

That being said, it certainly isn't a "bad" card considering how long it's been around. It gave great bang for the buck back in its day, and it should be able to handle most modern games for some time to come.

 

[error8]

I agree that it still has some life in it, but by any means, this card is getting old and tired. Yes it runs Left for dead great and like you said it yourself, that it because it's a source engine. I could max out HL 2 Episode 2 on a 256 mb 7600 GT at 1680X1050, all that because it's a source game. I bet it chokes at 4X AA in any other game you put it through, but if you don't care about AA then it might just hold you until next generation of cards. If I had it, I would sell it, since it still has some value in it. Next year it will probably become worthless. It's much easier, for me at least, to upgrade my card every 6 months or so, instead of upgrading it every 1 year or more. I did that with my 7600 GT and I payed a premium for an 8800 GT, since the old geforce 7 card had no value in it when I sold it.

 

[MustangSVT]

chevy aveo will get you from point a to point b... yes...

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: MustangSVT
chevy aveo will get you from point a to point b... yes...

:laugh:

 

[Keysplayr]

The old and tired description holds true if you were still considering the 8800GTS 320 as a 3rd from the top (8800GTX, 8800GTS640 being ahead) high end card, which it was when first launched. However, by todays standards, it still provides excellent mainstream performance comparable to the 9600GSO/9600GT ish performance. The 320MB has, and will continue to show some struggle in higher resolutions that will pull more texture memory than the card has, but, for 12x10 and 16x10 (depending on title), the 8800GTS320 is still a powerful card and great for mainstream gamers these days.

 

[AmberClad]

I had some good times with my 8800GTS 320MB. But if you're like me and you really enjoy cranking up those graphics quality settings, then you might find yourself feeling dissatisfied with having to dial things back with that card in some of the newer games.

 

[cyphilis]

I agree, the 320mb 8800 card of mine did me a lot of good for a long time. Infact, Im having a hard time putting it up on ebay right now, since I went to running 2 640mb cards.

 

[MarcVenice]

Originally posted by: error8
I agree that it still has some life in it, but by any means, this card is getting old and tired. Yes it runs Left for dead great and like you said it yourself, that it because it's a source engine. I could max out HL 2 Episode 2 on a 256 mb 7600 GT at 1680X1050, all that because it's a source game. I bet it chokes at 4X AA in any other game you put it through, but if you don't care about AA then it might just hold you until next generation of cards. If I had it, I would sell it, since it still has some value in it. Next year it will probably become worthless. It's much easier, for me at least, to upgrade my card every 6 months or so, instead of upgrading it every 1 year or more. I did that with my 7600 GT and I payed a premium for an 8800 GT, since the old geforce 7 card had no value in it when I sold it.

With 9800gt's going for $100, 9600gso's for $50ish and HD3850's for $50ish as well, how much will you get for your 8800gts 320mb ?

In holland I paid 280 euro's, but right now, I'd be surprised to sell it for more then 50 euro's. I don't see the point in selling it hehe

So far the only games that really made me turn down the graphic settings are Crysis and Clear Sky. Most other games still look great. I'm thinking about buying a HD4870 though, but I'd like to hear more about AMD's rumoured refresh, and if gtx270/gtx290 will lower gtx260 prices ...

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice

Originally posted by: error8
I agree that it still has some life in it, but by any means, this card is getting old and tired. Yes it runs Left for dead great and like you said it yourself, that it because it's a source engine. I could max out HL 2 Episode 2 on a 256 mb 7600 GT at 1680X1050, all that because it's a source game. I bet it chokes at 4X AA in any other game you put it through, but if you don't care about AA then it might just hold you until next generation of cards. If I had it, I would sell it, since it still has some value in it. Next year it will probably become worthless. It's much easier, for me at least, to upgrade my card every 6 months or so, instead of upgrading it every 1 year or more. I did that with my 7600 GT and I payed a premium for an 8800 GT, since the old geforce 7 card had no value in it when I sold it.

With 9800gt's going for $100, 9600gso's for $50ish and HD3850's for $50ish as well, how much will you get for your 8800gts 320mb ?

In holland I paid 280 euro's, but right now, I'd be surprised to sell it for more then 50 euro's. I don't see the point in selling it hehe

Yeah, you seem to be right, hard to sell this card now. I can't seem to find it anywhere. But I found an 8800 GTS 640 mb selling for 200 euros, in my beautiful country !!!! Maybe it's too late for this card. You should have sold it long time ago. But if it's enough for the games you play, then there is no point in getting another one. As long as it makes you happy , you should keep it.

 

[Cheex]

Well my 8800GTS 320MB card has done me a world of good in the 1.5 years. I'm thinking of selling it now, maybe cheaply to a friend on mine wanting to build his first rig. I'm considering just getting a 4870 1GB card in a few weeks time and call it a day.

No one should ever speak badly about this card because it truly was the bang-for-buck king at the time of its launch. Also, it has continued to deliver and keep up with the newer titles even until now.

I love my GTS 320MB!!

:thumbsup:

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: vj8usa

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
8800gts 320mb chugs along just fine at 1680*1050 most of the time. Dead Space, another source base game, runs great as well. Far Cry 2 also runs pretty well ... Depending on how demanding you are, you could still hold out for a little while, maybe even till AMD's entire new line-up hits the market ...

Actually, I think Dead space uses a proprietary EA engine (the same one the Godfather game used).

pcslookout: I understand what you're getting at, and I agree that the 320MB GTS is no slouch, but I don't see the logic of some of your arguments. While it's true that even 512MB isn't enough in some cases, it definitely does make a difference over 320MB. You'll use up 320MB before you use 512MB, and in today's games, it's not that difficult to choke a 320MB card, especially with AA. As for Crysis, you say no video card can run it perfectly at 1680x1050 with 4xAA. While this may be true, it doesn't change the fact that it'll be much, much more playable on a rig with a GTX280 than one with a 320MB GTS.

That being said, it certainly isn't a "bad" card considering how long it's been around. It gave great bang for the buck back in its day, and it should be able to handle most modern games for some time to come.

Yes a GTX280 would be able to play Crysis a whole lot better than any other video card. Though I didn't say at 1680x1050 with 4x AA. I said 1680x1050 with 4x AA and 16 AF.

The GTX280 can not play Crysis at 1680x1050 with 4x AA and 16 AF. With all details on very high. I bet the ice levels would bring it to its knees. Even Dual or Tri GTX280 could not.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice

Originally posted by: error8
I agree that it still has some life in it, but by any means, this card is getting old and tired. Yes it runs Left for dead great and like you said it yourself, that it because it's a source engine. I could max out HL 2 Episode 2 on a 256 mb 7600 GT at 1680X1050, all that because it's a source game. I bet it chokes at 4X AA in any other game you put it through, but if you don't care about AA then it might just hold you until next generation of cards. If I had it, I would sell it, since it still has some value in it. Next year it will probably become worthless. It's much easier, for me at least, to upgrade my card every 6 months or so, instead of upgrading it every 1 year or more. I did that with my 7600 GT and I payed a premium for an 8800 GT, since the old geforce 7 card had no value in it when I sold it.

With 9800gt's going for $100, 9600gso's for $50ish and HD3850's for $50ish as well, how much will you get for your 8800gts 320mb ?

In holland I paid 280 euro's, but right now, I'd be surprised to sell it for more then 50 euro's. I don't see the point in selling it hehe

So far the only games that really made me turn down the graphic settings are Crysis and Clear Sky. Most other games still look great. I'm thinking about buying a HD4870 though, but I'd like to hear more about AMD's rumoured refresh, and if gtx270/gtx290 will lower gtx260 prices ...

:thumbsup: To the other person suggested selling it I never wanted to. Why sell a completely good video card when your new one could die and leave you without a pc for a week or two ? I don't want to go back to slow video either. Geforce 8800 GTS 320 is the perfect backup card as well as it gets older.

 

[ronach]

My 8800GTS 320 is still doing just fine at 1650X1080..at the top on most games..others down just a lil, who cares..they all look great.

FC2
Deadspace
COD WAW Demo
Gears of War
Mass Effect
FFow
COD 4

 

[pcslookout]

Could anyone explain why with some games 320 mb of video ram is enough for 4x AA and 16 AF but for others it is not? It doesn't really make much sense to me how some games can just do fine. I really don't care about it that much but it always a nice option to enable if possible. Though not even the fastest video card in the world can enable those options on all games right now. So it is not like if you must have AA and AF on at 4x and 16x you will be able to for every game right now. Most yes with the fastest video card but not all.

 

[citan x]

Muahaha, I have an 8800GTS 320 running my 30" Monitor. Works well enough for me.

Though it is growing incredible hard to resist temptation to upgrade. Although I find obsessing about upgrading more interesting than the actual upgrade itself.

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Could anyone explain why with some games 320 mb of video ram is enough for 4x AA and 16 AF but for others it is not? It doesn't really make much sense to me how some games can just do fine. I really don't care about it that much but it always a nice option to enable if possible. Though not even the fastest video card in the world can enable those options on all games right now. So it is not like if you must have AA and AF on at 4x and 16x you will be able to for every game right now. Most yes with the fastest video card but not all.

http://www.yougamers.com/artic...you_really_need-page2/

That article has a pretty good explanation, and benchmarks of VRAM usage.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: vj8usa

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Could anyone explain why with some games 320 mb of video ram is enough for 4x AA and 16 AF but for others it is not? It doesn't really make much sense to me how some games can just do fine. I really don't care about it that much but it always a nice option to enable if possible. Though not even the fastest video card in the world can enable those options on all games right now. So it is not like if you must have AA and AF on at 4x and 16x you will be able to for every game right now. Most yes with the fastest video card but not all.

http://www.yougamers.com/artic...you_really_need-page2/

That article has a pretty good explanation, and benchmarks of VRAM usage.

Like I thought looks like 1 GB and 2 GB of video ram on a graphic card is the way to go now. Once we start wanting to use 8x AA this will be a necessary unless we want system memory and video memory swapping. Thats if anyone wants to use 8x AA. I can't believe how much 4x AA alone takes but 8x AA is a beast.

I can't see how even 512 mb of of video ram is a good standard now a days. I know 320 is not very good but I have noticed no problems and when I do I can see I would have the same problems with a video card with 512 mb of video ram because the video ram usage easily goes over 512 mb on plenty of games as I can see just when you enable 4x AA. I can't imagine what happens when enabling 16 AF as well does. I bet Crysis easily uses 1 GB if not close to 1.5 + GB of video ram on all details on very high with 4x AA and 16x AF enabled at 1680x1050. I bet Crysis could easily use 2 GB + of video ram if you enabled 8x AA and 16x AF on those same settings.

 

[pcslookout]

Maybe I am wrong but found some interesting benchmarks as well. link

Amazing how little of a difference there is which the card with double the video ram. I think there a lot of different variables that effects how much video ram effects a certain video card.

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: pcslookout
I can't imagine what happens when enabling 16 AF as well does. I bet Crysis easily uses 1 GB if not close to 1.5 + GB of video ram on all details on very high with 4x AA and 16x AF enabled at 1680x1050. I bet Crysis could easily use 2 GB + of video ram if you enabled 8x AA and 16x AF on those same settings.

AF doesn't have as much of an impact as you might think it does. It barely affects performance, and additional VRAM usage would be negligible. There's no way Crysis at 1680x1050 with 8xAA and any amount of AF can use 2+GB VRAM (or even over 1GB, I bet), unless you're using some crazy custom configuration/texture pack/etc.

Once you start going into really high resolutions (like 2560x1600), though, there are cases where 1GB isn't enough.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Maybe I am wrong but found some interesting benchmarks as well. link

Amazing how little of a difference there is which the card with double the video ram. I think there a lot of different variables that effects how much video ram effects a certain video card.

I tired to play crysis at 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 with 8800GTS640 and 8800GT256.. even that 8800GTS640 was supposed to be slower, it was actually only one that is playable.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: vj8usa

Originally posted by: pcslookout
I can't imagine what happens when enabling 16 AF as well does. I bet Crysis easily uses 1 GB if not close to 1.5 + GB of video ram on all details on very high with 4x AA and 16x AF enabled at 1680x1050. I bet Crysis could easily use 2 GB + of video ram if you enabled 8x AA and 16x AF on those same settings.

AF doesn't have as much of an impact as you might think it does. It barely affects performance, and additional VRAM usage would be negligible. There's no way Crysis at 1680x1050 with 8xAA and any amount of AF can use 2+GB VRAM (or even over 1GB, I bet), unless you're using some crazy custom configuration/texture pack/etc.

Once you start going into really high resolutions (like 2560x1600), though, there are cases where 1GB isn't enough.

What about DX9 and DX10. Does DX10 use more video ram than DX9 ? I prefer to play Crysis in DX10.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Maybe I am wrong but found some interesting benchmarks as well. link

Amazing how little of a difference there is which the card with double the video ram. I think there a lot of different variables that effects how much video ram effects a certain video card.

I tired to play crysis at 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 with 8800GTS640 and 8800GT256.. even that 8800GTS640 was supposed to be slower, it was actually only one that is playable.

Were you running in DirectX 9 or DirextX 10? What were you detail settings at and did you use any AA or AF ?

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Maybe I am wrong but found some interesting benchmarks as well. link

Amazing how little of a difference there is which the card with double the video ram. I think there a lot of different variables that effects how much video ram effects a certain video card.

I tired to play crysis at 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 with 8800GTS640 and 8800GT256.. even that 8800GTS640 was supposed to be slower, it was actually only one that is playable.

Were you running in DirectX 9 or DirextX 10? What were you detail settings at and did you use any AA or AF ?

DX10 - default high settings.

Same thing with Call of Juarez, 256MB + DX10 = far from enough